Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
In particular, the DOE should transparently report the list of similar activities used to cross-check the investment cost and the annual O&M cost.

In addition, the DOE should explain the means used to cross-check the suitability of the annual utilization hours and the annual net electricity supply. In doing so, the DOE should also clearly report the values assumed for the effective coefficient, plant use rate and loss loss rate used to calculate the annual net electricity supply.

2: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
The upper limit of the range of installed capacity selected (i.e. 50MW) was considered appropriate by the DOE since projects over 50 MW in rural areas cannot apply SL16-95 in the investment analysis; however, the DOE has not explained why this reason is deemed sufficient to rule out similar activities given that details on the impact of this regulation on hydropower plants, including the proposed project activity, were not provided.

3: The DOE is requested to provide information on how the distinctive differences between the project activity and the similar projects identified in the selected scope are justified as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (c).
The DOE has explained that the proposed project has higher unit investment cost and lower electricity tariff, which resulted in less financially attractive investment conditions compared with the identified six similar activities. However, the DOE has not explained why the similar activities were able to achieve better investment conditions than the proposed project activity.